Malcolm wrote:There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.

Below Dzogchen, aren't formless realm beings considered not to have bodies? i seem to rememeber you saying something about how the idea that formless realm beings had some kind of body was unique to Dzogchen.

There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Malcolm wrote:There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.

Below Dzogchen, aren't formless realm beings considered not to have bodies? i seem to rememeber you saying something about how the idea that formless realm beings had some kind of body was unique to Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.

Below Dzogchen, aren't formless realm beings considered not to have bodies? i seem to rememeber you saying something about how the idea that formless realm beings had some kind of body was unique to Dzogchen.

Both Dzogchen and Theravada assert "formless" means very subtle form.

Just curious, can you elaborate on this from the Theravada POV? I wasn't aware of this.

"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Malcolm wrote:There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.

There is a whole realm for minds without bodies. There are also bodies without mind. Also, if bodies are defined in terms of the experiential perspective, then they refer to the instances of certain sensory occurrences, that is: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, and those are not always present.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

dzogchungpa wrote:
I didn't know that about Theravada. Other schools don't say that though, do they?

Sarvastivadins hold that "formless" means absolutely without form. However, it is somewhat ridiculous idea to hold as they do that formless realm beings still possess a jivitindriya, a life-force faculty when they have no body.

Malcolm wrote:There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.

There is a whole realm for minds without bodies. There are also bodies without mind. Also, if bodies are defined in terms of the experiential perspective, then they refer to the instances of certain sensory occurrences, that is: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, and those are not always present.

As I pointed out already, the idea the formless realms are actually formless is a debatable point upon which there is disagreement. According to the the Theravada tradition as well as the Dzogchen tradition, there are no disembodied minds anywhere in the three realms, and with respect to the latter, not even in the bardo.

Malcolm wrote:As I pointed out already, the idea the formless realms are actually formless is a debatable point upon which there is disagreement. According to the the Theravada tradition as well as the Dzogchen tradition, there are no disembodied minds anywhere in the three realms, and with respect to the latter, not even in the bardo.

It is a debatable point that is addressed in the Kathavatthu (VIII.8, XVI.9) and refuted, i.e. the arupaloka cannot contain rupa, i.e. matter.

"You can predicate them truly of the Rupa-sphere, where there yet is matter. But this sphere is not identical with the Arupa-sphere. And if you predicate matter of the Arupa-sphere, you must show that matter agrees with the description you can truly give of the Arupa-sphere as a state of existence, a destiny, etc."
(Kathavatthu, VIII.8, tr Aung & Davids, p 220)

What source do you use regarding the Theravada interpretation?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

Malcolm wrote:As I pointed out already, the idea the formless realms are actually formless is a debatable point upon which there is disagreement. According to the the Theravada tradition as well as the Dzogchen tradition, there are no disembodied minds anywhere in the three realms, and with respect to the latter, not even in the bardo.

It is a debatable point that is addressed in the Kathavatthu (VIII.8, XVI.9) and refuted, i.e. the arupaloka cannot contain rupa, i.e. matter.

"You can predicate them truly of the Rupa-sphere, where there yet is matter. But this sphere is not identical with the Arupa-sphere. And if you predicate matter of the Arupa-sphere, you must show that matter agrees with the description you can truly give of the Arupa-sphere as a state of existence, a destiny, etc."
(Kathavatthu, VIII.8, tr Aung & Davids, p 220)

What source do you use regarding the Theravada interpretation?

Kosha. So apparently there is disagreement between continental Vaibhajyavadins and those in Śrī Lanka.

For the last year or two, whenever I am reminded of the sadness or chaos in my life or in the world around me, I am comforted by the Lotus Sutra's teaching that all beings will ultimately attain Buddhahood.

How can a person be overly anxious or stressed if they always keep in mind, if they always keep in their heart, that they already know the end from the beginning? As long as I have faith in the Lotus Sutra, I know that all things work out in the end for all beings.

Malcolm wrote:As I pointed out already, the idea the formless realms are actually formless is a debatable point upon which there is disagreement. According to the the Theravada tradition as well as the Dzogchen tradition, there are no disembodied minds anywhere in the three realms, and with respect to the latter, not even in the bardo.

It is a debatable point that is addressed in the Kathavatthu (VIII.8, XVI.9) and refuted, i.e. the arupaloka cannot contain rupa, i.e. matter.

"You can predicate them truly of the Rupa-sphere, where there yet is matter. But this sphere is not identical with the Arupa-sphere. And if you predicate matter of the Arupa-sphere, you must show that matter agrees with the description you can truly give of the Arupa-sphere as a state of existence, a destiny, etc."
(Kathavatthu, VIII.8, tr Aung & Davids, p 220)

What source do you use regarding the Theravada interpretation?

This is a question of terminology and definition of the concept of "rupa". in Southeast Asia buddhism Vijja Dhammakaya speaks about the bodies in the Arupa lokas. I guess the theravada mainstream just cut the other points. In Kosha the question is ambiguous too.

Astus wrote:This teaching of "nothing to be attained" is in many sutras, even in the Heart Sutra.

"Attaining" means you have to get something. The reason that "nothing to be attained" is because it is always there all along. We don't actually attain enlightenment or become Buddha. Buddha is already in us or that we are buddha, all we have to do is clean the mirror to see ourselves. "This Heart become Buddha, this Heart IS Buddha" spoken by Master Chin Kung.

Astus wrote:This teaching of "nothing to be attained" is in many sutras, even in the Heart Sutra.

"Attaining" means you have to get something. The reason that "nothing to be attained" is because it is always there all along. We don't actually attain enlightenment or become Buddha. Buddha is already in us or that we are buddha, all we have to do is clean the mirror to see ourselves. "This Heart become Buddha, this Heart IS Buddha" spoken by Master Chin Kung.

Isn't this kind of an eternalist point of view? In this sutta, the Buddha points out several 'wrong' views associated with the ending of suffering. He did not teach something existing in us or that we are anything like this. If you read through this short sutta, you can see immediately what the right view is that he is talking about. It is not about becoming or cleaning any mirror.

"Attaining" means you have to get something. The reason that "nothing to be attained" is because it is always there all along. We don't actually attain enlightenment or become Buddha. Buddha is already in us or that we are buddha, all we have to do is clean the mirror to see ourselves. "This Heart become Buddha, this Heart IS Buddha" spoken by Master Chin Kung.

Isn't this kind of an eternalist point of view? In this sutta, the Buddha points out several 'wrong' views associated with the ending of suffering. He did not teach something existing in us or that we are anything like this. If you read through this short sutta, you can see immediately what the right view is that he is talking about. It is not about becoming or cleaning any mirror.

All sentient beings are future Buddha and everyone is capable of being Buddha once we "clean" ourself of greed, hatred and delusion. Isn't all of Buddha's teaching sums up to a simple concept is to study Precept, Meditation, Wisdom and to eliminate Greed, Hatred, Delusion? All Dhamma are just "boat" that allows practitioner to reach the other shore. Once we reach the other side even "dhamma/boat" is discarded, why continue hanging on to it when it's no longer needed?

"Attaining" means you have to get something. The reason that "nothing to be attained" is because it is always there all along. We don't actually attain enlightenment or become Buddha. Buddha is already in us or that we are buddha, all we have to do is clean the mirror to see ourselves. "This Heart become Buddha, this Heart IS Buddha" spoken by Master Chin Kung.

Isn't this kind of an eternalist point of view? In this sutta, the Buddha points out several 'wrong' views associated with the ending of suffering. He did not teach something existing in us or that we are anything like this. If you read through this short sutta, you can see immediately what the right view is that he is talking about. It is not about becoming or cleaning any mirror.

All sentient beings are future Buddha and everyone is capable of being Buddha once we "clean" ourself of greed, hatred and delusion. Isn't all of Buddha's teaching sums up to a simple concept is to study Precept, Meditation, Wisdom and to eliminate Greed, Hatred, Delusion? All Dhamma are just "boat" that allows practitioner to reach the other shore. Once we reach the other side even "dhamma/boat" is discarded, why continue hanging on to it when it's no longer needed?

For me, it is quite simple. The Buddha's teaching is about seeing things the way they are. Good luck with 'cleaning' yourself.

Isn't this kind of an eternalist point of view? In this sutta, the Buddha points out several 'wrong' views associated with the ending of suffering. He did not teach something existing in us or that we are anything like this. If you read through this short sutta, you can see immediately what the right view is that he is talking about. It is not about becoming or cleaning any mirror.

All sentient beings are future Buddha and everyone is capable of being Buddha once we "clean" ourself of greed, hatred and delusion. Isn't all of Buddha's teaching sums up to a simple concept is to study Precept, Meditation, Wisdom and to eliminate Greed, Hatred, Delusion? All Dhamma are just "boat" that allows practitioner to reach the other shore. Once we reach the other side even "dhamma/boat" is discarded, why continue hanging on to it when it's no longer needed?

For me, it is quite simple. The Buddha's teaching is about seeing things the way they are. Good luck with 'cleaning' yourself.

For me, it is quite simple. The Buddha's teaching is about seeing things the way they are. Good luck with 'cleaning' yourself.

In which case you are opposed to the teaching which you quoted in order to support your view because it quite clearly talks (right at the beginning) about the need to clearing obstructions:

6. "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them?

AND, especially in the Pali Sutta, the Buddha continuously refers to "taints" and "stains" that need to be removed.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde